User:Indubitably/Notebook

Timeline of dispute between editors

• Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 September

Original nomination/review

• Gimmetrow. 01:00, WP:GAN: (try gan)

10 October

GA review

• Million Moments. 10 October, Talk:Brenda Song: GA Reivew

21 October

GA fail

• • Million Moments. 08:06, 21 October, Talk:Brenda Song: (GA Fail)
  • Fail message, including instructions to take to GAR if there is disagreement.

Original re-nomination

• Gimmetrow. 12:32, 21 October, WP:GAN: (on the queue again for another two months)

Edit war, Talk:Brenda Song

• 1. Gimmetrow. 12:40, (relisting for another two months) (Removes fail from history, replaces original GA review subpage, seemingly disregarding the review by Million Moments.)
• 1. Peanut4. 5:23, (don't remove previous GA)
• 2. Gimmetrow. 5:24, (not removed; it's the same)
• 1. Malleus Fatuorum. 18:34, (Restoring GA history)
• 3. Gimmetrow. 19:41, (remove)
• 2. Malleus Fatuorum. 21:04, (Please stop removing this article's history.)
• 4. Gimmetrow. 21:07, (please stop readding it, OK, just stop)
• 2. Peanut4. 21:17, (Undid revision 246805151 by Gimmetrow (talk))
• Peanut4. 21:19, (correct GA nominee page)

3RR report and actions

• Malleus Fatuorum. 21:21, WP:AN3:(User:Gimmetrow reported by User:Malleus Fatuorum)
• Gimmetrow. 21:26, 21 October, (Suggestion of blocks and proposal to start a GAR)
• William M. Connolley. 21:37, blocked Gimmetrow (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (3RR on Talk:Brenda Song)
  • Update to AN3: (link)

Discussion, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

Archive

• Gimmetrow. 21:26, "Kindly fix the damage on the talk page. If I interact with either Million or Peanut right now, there is a fair chance a few people will get blocked. You could, for instance, set up a GAR."[1]
• Malleus Fatuorum. 21:30. "I think you may be misunderstanding. I have no opinion on the review, or any interest in a GAR. I am simply of the view that you do not have the right to revise history to suit yourself, no matter how upset you may feel right now. You may be interested in this. [2]"[3]
• Gimmetrow. 21:32, "What the hell. Please start a GAR and remove that nonsense."[4]
• Malleus Fatuorum. 21:35, "You don't appear to be thinking rationally. I said just above this that I have no interest in a GAR. If you or anyone else wants to start a GAR, then feel free to do so. My concern is simply with your attempts to rewrite the article's history."[5]

22 October

GAR opened

• Jbmurray. 05:43, (creating GAR after contentions arose during GA review process, and per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=prev&oldid=246810484)

24 October

Discussion on User talk:Gimmetrow

• Malleus Fatuorum. 26.25, (I'd still like to know, don't keep blanking it: new section) "What were you warning me about?"
• Gimmetrow. 26:29, (rv, don't post here)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 26:30, (Embarrassed?)
• Gimmetrow. 26:30, (rv, don't post here)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 26:33, (just another admin fucktard then)
• Gimmetrow. 26:36, (rv, don't post here)

26 – 27 October

Discussion on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

• Malleus Fatuorum. 17:03, "Gimmetrow has not accepted that he was wrong, attempted to bully me when I warned him about his 3RR violation before making the report, has refused to explain his actions when I have repeatedly asked him, and is now playing the injured party. His repeated attempts to rewrite history to suit himself are unacceptable."[6]
• Malleus Fatuorum. 00:25, "If you're going to criticise me, please have the courtesey to do so somewhere I am permitted to tell you exactly what I think of your opinion, which frankly is not much.[7] Else it's just more admin willy waving, which there has been far too much of recently."[8]

29 – 30 November

"Edit war" on Talk:Brenda Song and renomination

• Geometry guy. 15:27, (No action at GAR: article may meet criteria, but needs to be renominated)
• Gimmetrow. 16:42, (a) (Removes GAN from history, again, replacing it with the GAR; renominates GAN.)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 17:39, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brenda_Song&diff=next&oldid=254860569 what's going on here?])
• Geometry guy. 18:02, (Restore GA nomination)
• Peanut4. 20:44, (should be page 2) (again)

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Full discussion, in archive.

Discussion on User talk:Geometry guy

• Gimmetrow. 23:03, "Yes MF's edit there is vandalism. Since MF has chosen not to undo the vandalism, and has chosen to be abusive to content editors, I may be forced to question his competence to participate in the GA process, particularly GA sweeps."(MF)
• Geometry guy. 23:06, "He removed the GAN, but lets assume that this was a good faith mistake. I have restored it. Otherwise, he restored the correct article history. Any other problems?"(Assuming good faith mistake)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 23:40, "I have, in my opinion, acted fairly in every GA review I've done, although I'm only human and have undoubtedly made mistakes. I am quite happy to stand down as a GA Sweeps reviewer, or indeed as a GA reviewer if Gimmetrow's opinion of my competence is shared by others."(reply)
• Gimmetrow. 23:51, "If I see any further abuse from MF, I expect you, GG, to do something about it or get someone else to do something about it. To think I was being nice letting a personal attack go while MF was under a WQ alert. Never again. I will not stand anyone abusing editors like this. People like MF should be made admins so they can't hurt people."(no summary)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 23:57, "I have yet to see the "abuse" of which you speak. I simply warned you about your repeated attempts to rewrite the history of one article that is clearly close to your heart. And I warn you again; if you persist, then I will take whatever acrtion is necessary to make sure that you are never allowed to abuse your authority in that way again."(reply)
• Gimmetrow. 02:34, "Hello again. Despite a clear COI with regard to the Brenda Song article, MF has taken actions with regard to it. I am hereby formally disputing MF's competence to participate in the GA process. I intend to remove him from GA sweeps in about 24 hours unless you have some specific suggestions about how to proceed."(no summary)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 02:37, "Exactly how do you intend to remove me from GA Sweeps? And what is this COI of which you speak? You are the one who has the COI, not me. I just want to see some honest fair play."(don't make me laugh)
• Ling.Nut.

• "Hi MF and Gimmetrow. I like both of you. I'm not taking sides. But is there any chance both of you can just click your heels three times, say Ihateyou Ihateyou Ihateyou, stick a pin in a Malleus/Gimmetrow doll (whichever is appropriate), cut the doll's head off, bury it, walk away... and then just ignore each other? You're sorta making everyone on the entire planet unhappy.
• Maybe you should let someone impartial handle the hot babe article, without taking each other to any dispute resolution forum to continue this mini-war. I know you'll BOTH be pissed at me for posting this... but I'm just saying..."(@MF @ Gimmetrow)

Discussion on User talk:Gimmetrow

• Geometry guy. 16:56, "Have you learnt nothing? The GAR exists because of a prior disputed GAN and it makes no sense to list it in article history without listing the GAN! Do you want to go through the mess of 1 month ago all over again? Good luck with the nomination. I bear you no ill will and am sorry that the GAR took so long. It seems that if I leave decisions to others, nothing happens."[9]
• Pedro. 00:04, "I don't dispute MF is rude and uncivil (by WP standards). However he's also a damn good fellow and an excellent contributor (one of the best). They key thing is you can't start mentioning blocks and then citing diffs from a month ago in the same entry. Look, seriously, just let it go. We're not walking away from a problem we're defusing one by doing that. Please."[10]
• Gimmetrow. 00:20, "I tried to do that a month ago by ignoring MF. It obviously didn't work. So you convince MF to stop."[11]
• SandyGeorgia. 00:36, "This is on at least four talk pages now, so I'll post to the one I frequent the most. It's been apparent for over a month that Gimme was trying to avoid further inflammation or discussion of this situation, so it would be good if Gguy or Pedro or another party would oversee any ongoing issues related to GA and for Malleus to avoid posting to Gimme's talk page. Even better would be a central place to report all GA AH and incorrect templating GA issues (I saw three just yesterday, and I don't notice the same parties complaining about them), because then I'd have a place to report them daily, where an independent party can deal with them."[12]

1 – 2 December

Discussion on User talk:Geometry guy

Continued from 29-30 November discussion on same page

• Malleus Fatuorum. 15:53, "Well, the 24 hours is now more than up. Time to make good your threat Gimmetrow and remove me from GA Sweeps."(time's up)
• OhanaUnited. 03:29, "Quit it, both of you. Can't you guys stop growling, staring, biting (or attempting to bite) each other heads off?"(jesus <_<)

Question from MF on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

• Malleus Fatuorum. 17:04, "What is the procedure for removing a reviewer from GA Sweeps? Is it at the whim of any pasing administrator bearing a grudge? [13]"(Removing a Reviewer from GA Sweeps: new section)

3 – 4 December

Edit war on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

• 1. Gimmetrow. 02:50, Blanks thread.(reverting PA)
• 1. Malleus Fatuorum. 14:07, Restores thread.(Undid revision 255558988 by Gimmetrow (talk))
• 2. Gimmetrow. 02:07, Blanks thread again.(removing personal attack)
• 2. Malleus Fatuorum. 02:20, Restores thread again.(This is a question, not a personal attack. Please do not risk another 3RR block)
• 3. Gimmetrow. 02:23, Blanks thread again.(rv personal attack again)
• 3. Malleus Fatuorum. 02:38, Restores thread again.(Please stop)

Discussion following edit war on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

• Seddon. 04:09, "What reasoning is there to remove someone from the GA sweeps?"(comment)
• Tznkai. 04:14, Partially blanks thread.(RM off topic personally direct critical comment)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 04:32, "If you look through this article's recent history you'll see that my question was prompted by the threats issued by one administrator. And that drawing attention to those threats is now interpreted as a personal attack. Wikimadness."(wilkimadness)
• Gimmetrow. 05:09, "MF, I think you know the difference between what you just said (which is perfectly fine and civil), and what you said before (which was not)."(no summary)
• Gimmetrow. 05:12, Tweaks statement. "MF, there's a difference between what you just said (which is perfectly fine and civil), and what was said before (which was not). I suspect you know that.(no summary)
• Gimmetrow. 05:15, Adds "Although you might want to consider not always saying "admin", as if the issue is has something to do with adminship. This is an issue between editors."(no summary)
• Ottava Rima. 05:53, "Gimmetrow, it is impossible to distinguish the two. Although people may wish that you can act as an admin, and that you can separately act as an editor, that is psychologically impossible. Its quite fair that those who claim Malleus has a CoI equally have a CoI and probably shouldn't be making such claims, especially in regards to one of the most highly respected GA reviewers."(no summary)
• Ling.nut. 15:19-22, "Oh wait, this is another Malleus/Gimmetrow thing. Now I get it. The encyclopedia and everyone else involved with it fades to black, since it and they are obviously unimportant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled grenade throwing contest."(We now return you to your regularly scheduled grenade throwing contest.)
• Malleus Fatuorum. 16:02, "The question which is being studiously ignored here is whether it is appropriate for Gimmetrow to make the kind of threats that appear to be becoming his trademark. To whit, the removal of an editor from the GA prpject."(@Ling Nut)
• Jennavecia. 16:02-03, "(EC) Neither Gimmetrow nor anyone else, admin or not, has the authority to remove anyone from GA sweeps. I suggest a step back and a count to ten. It's literally laughable that one would have Malleus' comments redacted as a violation of NPA after they've threatened an action they have no right whatsoever to make. There was nothing against policy in the redacted post, and if anymore inappropriate threats or warnings are thrown his way, there's going to be some serious time-wasting discussion. Malleus' is prolific in the GA project and has done extremely well as a sweeps reviewer. Sweeps reviewers are some of the project's best, and the sweeps are an important process for the project. Thus, when anyone has some issues with a sweeps reviewer, it would be best to have a little respect when dealing with those issues."(cmt/tweak)

5 December

Blanking and discussion on User talk:Geometry guy

Continued from 1-2 December discussion on same page

• Gimmetrow. 06:43, Blanks thread.(bah)

Continuing discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

Full discussion as of 09:51.

Discussion on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

• Malleus. 18:30, 5 December, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum: "PS. I understand that some sensitive souls may consider an edit summary of "just another admin fucktard then" as in some way uncivil. I view it as fair comment in the circumstances."(PS to Jenneveccia)

6 – 7 December

Restoration, reblanking and discussion on User talk:Geometry guy

• Geometry guy. 11:59, Restored the page.(Remove IP edit and restore thread)
• Gimmetrow. 13:14, "G-guy, obviously you can do whatever you want on your talk page, but I removed this thread as a gesture, and I ask you to honor that notion. However, I wonder why you removed my comment at Talk:Brenda Song, but not the comments of another editor directly primarily at me rather than the article?"(no summary)
• Geometry guy. 13:26, Courtesy blanks section. "I didn't understand the gesture because of the edit summary "bah", but I will remove it now as you request. You need to be more communicative if you want your intentions to be understood. Regarding Talk:Brenda Song, I removed your comment and a personal comment made against you in response. I only removed comments from the end of the thread. It would be helpful if personal comments made earlier in the thread were struck by editors making them, but removing them would confuse and possibly inflame the situation."(Reply)